978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-28-08

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Crippen v. Campbell

Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2768076

Jason M. CRIPPEN

Catharyn CAMPBELL.

No. E2007-00309-COA-R3-CV.

Aug. 15, 2007 Session.

Sept. 24, 2007.

passing of the ring was a completed gift upon the transfer of the ring to the

appeals. We reverse and grant the Donor summary judgment on his

complaint for return of the ring.

to be married.” The engagement, however, did not last.FN2 The parties

are no longer involved romantically and neither has a present intent to

marry the other. When the Donee rejected the Donor’s request for the

return of the ring, the latter filed an action to recover personal property.

granted the Donee’s motion, noting, with respect to the engagement ring,

once she receives and she accepts, it becomes a final gift and nothing else

that happens thereafter changes it. I think that engagement rings are gifts.

This appeal followed.

The Donor presents one issue for our consideration. As stated in his brief,

Tenn.Ct.App.,2007

The Donor argues that the transfer of an engagement ring is a conditional

gift-one given in contemplation of marriage. He asserts that, if and when

the condition, i.e., the marriage, does not occur, the gift fails and the donor

is entitled to the return of the ring. The Donee, not surprisingly, agrees with

the trial court that the transfer of the ring to the Donee was complete upon

is contrary to the trial court’s ruling in this case.

III.

The only citable authority in Tennessee addressing the legal status of an

engagement ring is a federal bankruptcy case, In re Berry, 1 B.R. 127

(Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1979). That case, however, was not a dispute between

condition that the marriage ensue. The condition having been met, as in

this case, the gifts become absolute.” Id. at 130 (citation omitted). While

the ruling in Berry is helpful in resolving the issue before us, it is not based

upon facts similar to those in the instant case. As previously noted, there

are no citable Tennessee appellate court decisions on point.

engagement rings should be considered, by their very nature, conditional

gifts given in contemplation of marriage. Once it is established the ring is

an engagement ring, it is a conditional gift.

Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 634 (Kan.1997). The Indiana Court of

Appeals explained why this is so:

Fowler v. Perry, 830 N.E.2d 97, 105 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citation omitted).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed:

We find the conditional gift theory particularly appropriate when the

contested property is an engagement ring. The inherent symbolism of this

gift forecloses the need to establish an express condition that marriage will

Ct.App.1990). “At the moment of a marriage proposal, couples are least

inclined to utter any disparaging comments concerning the longevity of the

relationship.” Id. Rather than imposing such an unrealistic requirement,

courts have almost universally held that “an engagement ring given in

contemplation of marriage is an impliedly conditional gift”; it is a completed

(Bankr.D.Md.2002); Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136

(Mich.Ct.App .2001); Busse v. Lambert, 773 So.2d 182 (La.Ct.App.2000);

Lindh v. Surman, 702 A.2d 560 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997); Aronow v. Silver, 538

A.2d 851 (N.J.Super.Ct. Ch. Div.1987); Lyle v. Durham, 473 N.E.2d 1216

(Ohio Ct.App.1984); Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975);

as this past February, the Court of Appeals decided a case involving a

factual dispute over “whether [a] gift … was a complete, unconditional inter

vivos gift or whether it was a gift with a condition attached.” Weston v.

Community Baptist Church of Wilson County, No. M2004-02688-COA–R3–

CV, 2007 WL 394644, at *7 (Tenn. Ct.App. M.S., filed February 5, 2007)

“Confederate Memorial Hall”); Albright v. Button, 155 S.W.3d 110

(Tenn.Ct.App.2004) (decedent’s bequest of real property to his caretaker

conditioned on her continued performance of care-taking duties); Smith v.

Smith, 650 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983) (father’s gift of a car to his

daughter purportedly conditioned on various criteria of good behavior;

latter set of rules flows naturally from the former. As stated in Arnoult,

Tennessee courts have long held that “in order to constitute a completed

and irrevocable gift, inter vivos, there must be: (1) an intention on the part

of the donor to make the gift, and (2) the intention must be accompanied

by delivery.” Id. at 710 (citing Dodson v. Matthews, 117 S.W.2d 969

The trial court in the instant case relied upon a “memorandum opinion”

FN3 of ours that apparently was cited to the trial court by counsel for the

Donee. Such a case should never be cited to a court “in any unrelated

case.” This can be seen from a reading of the very clear language of Rule

10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals:

2481931, at *3 n. 3 (Tenn., filed September 5, 2007). The “memorandum

opinion” case cited to the trial court, and upon which that court relied, has

no precedential value.

IV.

In summary, we hold that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of

engagement is broken owing to the fault of the donor, he may not recover

the ring”). We decline to follow these cases because we believe the rule

adopted by us is more in keeping with the essence of what occurs, and

what is contemplated, at the time of an engagement. If and when that

which the parties contemplated-the marriage-does not occur, the

appellee Catharyn Campbell. This case is remanded to the trial court for

enforcement of the summary judgment for Jason M. Crippen and for

collection of the trial court’s costs, all as provided for by law.